FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   PreferencesPreferences   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Relativity
Anti-relativist Alliance
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 13 [192 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page:  1, 2, 3, ..., 11, 12, 13 Next
Author Message
3ality
science forum beginner


Joined: 17 Sep 2007
Posts: 7

PostPosted: Mon Sep 17, 2007 4:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Read these links here:

http://home.comcast.net/~xtxinc/prioritymyth.htm

http://www.anti-relativity.com/forum/index.php

You can download Dingle's book here
http://blog.hasslberger.com/2007/02/challenging_einsteins_special.html
Back to top
finite difference
science forum beginner


Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 37

PostPosted: Sat Jan 28, 2006 11:03 pm    Post subject: Re: Anti-relativist Alliance Reply with quote

Hexenmeister wrote:
Quote:
cmaj10@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1138475909.057528.291610@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Tom Roberts wrote:
Re: the subject of this thread:

"Wisdom is not gained by pooling ignorance." -- Ayn Rand


There is no instance in the history of physics of anyone ever making a
significant contribution to the field who was not familiar with the
then-current theories and experiments. This means that any
"anti-relativist" who seriously wants to make a contribution to physics
had better learn all he/she can about SR and GR and the current
experiments. Anything less is just foolin' around.


Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com

Einstein claimed ignorance on many fronts regarding electrodynamics.
And not being an expert in ether theory didn't prevent him from
trashing the whole thing. It doesn't take an expert in sand castles to
kick delusions apart.

[Nothing is to be implied about my acceptance level of SR and GR.]

Chris

Roberts is a totally deluded psychotic moron.

maybe, have you a better alternative?

let us take a look into your papers

have you a post phd? a phd? a msc? or at least a bsc?

what sc have you and what sc is best for relativity

is a mechanickal sc better for relativstivy or a electronical sc?



Quote:

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Lucent/Roberts.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/STM/Scoundrels.htm#Roberts
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Synchronize/Synchronize.htm

Hexenmeister
Back to top
Der alte Hexenmeister
science forum Guru


Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2053

PostPosted: Sat Jan 28, 2006 10:32 pm    Post subject: Re: Anti-relativist Alliance Reply with quote

<cmaj10@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1138475909.057528.291610@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Quote:
Tom Roberts wrote:
Re: the subject of this thread:

"Wisdom is not gained by pooling ignorance." -- Ayn Rand


There is no instance in the history of physics of anyone ever making a
significant contribution to the field who was not familiar with the
then-current theories and experiments. This means that any
"anti-relativist" who seriously wants to make a contribution to physics
had better learn all he/she can about SR and GR and the current
experiments. Anything less is just foolin' around.


Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com

Einstein claimed ignorance on many fronts regarding electrodynamics.
And not being an expert in ether theory didn't prevent him from
trashing the whole thing. It doesn't take an expert in sand castles to
kick delusions apart.

[Nothing is to be implied about my acceptance level of SR and GR.]

Chris

Roberts is a totally deluded psychotic moron.

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Lucent/Roberts.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/STM/Scoundrels.htm#Roberts
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Synchronize/Synchronize.htm

Hexenmeister
Back to top
cmaj10@yahoo.com
science forum beginner


Joined: 17 Sep 2005
Posts: 33

PostPosted: Sat Jan 28, 2006 7:18 pm    Post subject: Re: Anti-relativist Alliance Reply with quote

Tom Roberts wrote:
Quote:
Re: the subject of this thread:

"Wisdom is not gained by pooling ignorance." -- Ayn Rand


There is no instance in the history of physics of anyone ever making a
significant contribution to the field who was not familiar with the
then-current theories and experiments. This means that any
"anti-relativist" who seriously wants to make a contribution to physics
had better learn all he/she can about SR and GR and the current
experiments. Anything less is just foolin' around.


Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com

Einstein claimed ignorance on many fronts regarding electrodynamics.
And not being an expert in ether theory didn't prevent him from
trashing the whole thing. It doesn't take an expert in sand castles to
kick delusions apart.

[Nothing is to be implied about my acceptance level of SR and GR.]

Chris
Back to top
Henri Wilson
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 3381

PostPosted: Sun Jan 22, 2006 10:15 pm    Post subject: Re: Anti-relativist Alliance Reply with quote

On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 11:32:49 GMT, "G. L. Bradford" <glbrad01@insightbb.com>
wrote:

Quote:
Henri Wilson wrote:

That convincingly shows that light speeds up as it falls, like anything
else.

"c" is inherently a velocity neutral velocity: A speed neutral speed. You
just can't picture such a neutral existing. That's all there is to it.

GLB


'c' is a universal constant with dimension of speed.

It also happens to be the speed of light wrt its source.


HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Back to top
Henri Wilson
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 3381

PostPosted: Sun Jan 22, 2006 10:14 pm    Post subject: Re: Anti-relativist Alliance Reply with quote

On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 13:53:31 GMT, "G. L. Bradford" <glbrad01@insightbb.com>
wrote:

Quote:
Henri Wilson wrote:

(snip)

Not so Ghost. It's quite simple and specific.
Light move initially at c wrt its source.

I have added the condition that its speed may vary slightly over vast
distances
of space.

(snip)

Light doesn't deal in space, whether vast or not. It deals in time
differences and differentials, including "vast" differences and/or
differentials in time. It doesn't know "space" from Adam, so to speak. It is
front loaded only (a one-dimensional two-dimensionality, meaning it is
single-sided-only). Try seeing its information, thus it, from any rear or
side angles whatsoever. There are no such things. There is no such thing.
This has no meaning regarding time but it most certainly does have vitally
important meaning regarding space. Light is solely a time traveler even in
space. It is in no way a space traveler. It has no rear angles whatsoever.
It has no side angles whatsoever. It has no spatial geometry, as such,
whatsoever. Indeed it can have no sense of space. It is a naked singularity
orientated to time...and timing...alone, even in space.

I don't give a stuff what light thinks.
I know that it takes time to traverse distances in space, as observed by us
humans.

Quote:
Space neutral, it can be used as an implacably [hard] gauge. It couldn't
be so used if it were integrally involved with -- woven into -- space in any
way. There would either be no light at all, period, or there would be
uniformly far, far too much light at every possible point of space, if it
had anything whatsoever to do with any integration whatsoever into or with
space (as such). Since there is no such connection, there is no such problem
("It doesn't know 'space' from Adam," so to speak again).

It might be called "space-time" but that was a very bad, so bad it reaches
the proportions of being purely evil, selection of terms for description for
it. "Distance-time" (light pico-second, light millisecond, light second,
light year, and so on) alone should have been the term for it. Light,
regarding its velocity constant of "c," "invariably" tells us that it is not
time, never time, that is elastic but space alone that is, and that can be
made, elastic (relatively speaking, that is). You can break time up
(therefore light) like shattering a hard diamond into so many asymmetrical
diamond shards (all of them still diamonds; all of them still diamond), but
you can't stretch it, expand it or contract it, or turn it inside out, like
a rubber sheet balloon as you can with space (therefore gravity). Time
(therefore light) possesses such an inherent, adherent, thing as absolute
zero point. Space (therefore gravity) possesses no such inherent, adherent,
thing as absolute zero point what or howsoever. Therefore the one is by far
the hardest, most [inflexible] of all things while the other is by far the
softest, most [flexible] of all things.

....gord! what a load of crap!

Quote:

GLB



HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Back to top
Henri Wilson
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 3381

PostPosted: Sun Jan 22, 2006 10:10 pm    Post subject: Re: Anti-relativist Alliance Reply with quote

On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 01:00:03 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
<ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:

Quote:
In sci.physics.relativity, HW@..(Henri Wilson)
HW@
wrote
on Sat, 21 Jan 2006 23:44:53 GMT
qgh5t1tg56hpvnbfsgre9u3a3jt9ud8tpl@4ax.com>:
On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 06:00:13 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:

In sci.physics.relativity, HW@..(Henri Wilson)
HW@
wrote


What experiments have shown the BaTh to be wrong?

No experiments have ever shown the BaTh to be wrong. Of
course, it's far from clear what BaTh is anyway; it's
so nebulous it's very difficult to shoot at.

Not so Ghost. It's quite simple and specific.
Light move initially at c wrt its source.

It also moves at c wrt its receiver, according to SR.

That's an untested postulate, Ghost. It is also part of SR's inheritance from
LET.

Quote:
GR states the same thing though there are some minor
anomalies with respect to measurement, mostly because
of the variability of the ticks between source and
destination. (The anomalies are at most on the order of
10^-15 or so, if my computations are correct.)


I have added the condition that its speed may vary
slightly over vast distances of space.

(This in contrast to such efforts as Newtonian Ballistic Theory,
or nBaT, which is easily falsified by Sagnac and Pound-Rebka,
or even classical rigid luminiferous aether theory, which is
falsified by MMX.)

What are you talking about Ghost.
Pound -Rebka PROVES the BaTh correct.

It proves nothing of the sort. At best, it is
consistent with BaTh. I'm not even sure about
that; Newtonian BaT theory is easily shown to
require (1 + 2gh/c^2), but GR asserts (1 + gh/c^2).

Well its claimed GPS figures are out by a factor of two then.
The BaTh predicts exactly the same blueshift as GR, 4.56 *10^-10, or whatever.

Quote:


If you do the fairly simple sums you will find it
gives exactly the observed bueshift.

Already done. What is the observed blueshift?


I have now provided several reasons why Sagnac
DOES NOT refute the BaTh.

Sagnac is another matter entirely. Absolute time
theories (including Newtonian Ballistic) cannot explain
it at all. I don't know if BaTh can.

SR doesn't do too badly, though the centripetal force
might throw it for a bit of a loop if one's not careful.

The SRian 'classical' explanation is identical to the one that would apply to a
sagnac interferometer using sound in still air.....and we know light is not
like sound, don't we Ghost.

Quote:
What experiments have shown your aether exists?

Please. Kenseto's stuff is not aether. It's the E-matrix.
Or something like that. :-)

Call it what you like....same stuff really...


[.sigsnip]


HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm




HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Back to top
Henri Wilson
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 3381

PostPosted: Sun Jan 22, 2006 10:03 pm    Post subject: Re: Anti-relativist Alliance Reply with quote

On 21 Jan 2006 16:03:39 -0800, "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote:

Quote:

Henri Wilson wrote:

[snip]


What are you talking about Ghost.
Pound -Rebka PROVES the BaTh correct.

Neither emitter nor reciever were moving in Pound-Rebka.

Poor boy!

I think the light did.

Quote:

[snip]


HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Back to top
hanson
science forum Guru


Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 793

PostPosted: Sun Jan 22, 2006 7:45 pm    Post subject: Re: Anti-relativist Alliance Reply with quote

"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> cranked himself needlessly in message
news:1137835622.397439.148850@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
news:1137808897.490313.4720@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Quote:
[hanson]
Eric, why is it that you refer to Einstein's citations as "heckling"?

[Eric]
Simply because you repeat them over and over without
grasping the meaning behind them.You see incompetence
and malice where others simply see someone who is capable
of learning. You aren't seeking to learn, you are seeking to
destroy what you cannot understand.

[hanson]

ahahahaha.... AHAHAHAHAH... I am not destroying anything, Eric.
I never said that you were incompetent, but as you can see below
in [1] it is hard to conclude otherwise...... ahahaha.... So, Eric stop
your noise that you are making over your dilettante deal of (x*1/2)^2,
but instead explain now the "meaning" why is it that you refer to
Einstein's citations as "heckling".... Here they are again for your
benefit.... with the amendments I made for you in [1] below:
Quote:

"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:1137808897.490313.4720@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
news:1137789315.767593.76480@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Quote:
"Hexenmeister" <vanquish@broom.Mickey> wrote in message
news:AK1Af.166066$vl2.49500@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"hanson" <hanson@quick.net> wrote in message
news:uh0Af.48024$he.938@trnddc03...
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> cranked himself in message
news:1137710521.904045.252500@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
[hanson to Hexer]
....Gisse's grand discovery that when you square root (n) and
then square that root you get the original (n) back, especially
when n = (-1/2) ... reminded me of Gisse makeing arithmetic
push ups: ...rt sq .. rt sq .. rt sq.. ::: up down .. up down .. up down

[Gisse]
It isn't my fault you don't understand how to multiply powers. Lots
of people here just don't understand first year mathematics, which
manages to both surprise and not surprise me.
sqrt(x) = x^1/2
(x*1/2)^2 = (x^1/2)*(x^1/2) = x^(1/2 + 1/2) = x ....[AHAHAHAHA...] [1E]
If you feel otherwise, prove it. Mathematically. Anything less is
cowardace.

[hanson] [1]

ahahahaha... I do not feel otherwise, cowboy, except that you are
an argumentative, juvenile fanatic who can't read and apparently
has a very big loudmouth that does not know what it is talking about.
See [1E] where you say (x*1/2)^2 = x... Eric, even Jeff Relf would
not have made this assertion of yours. So, lay off Jeff , Eric, for the
more you strut with your "for others to learn", the more you give the
impression that it's YOU who has not learned yet... ahahaha... Or,
Eric, for your benefit let me lay it out here for you in detail:
You say that (x*1/2)^2 = (x/2)^2 = x^2/4 = x according to you.
Hence, so YOU say x^2 = 4x, so x = 4, n'est pas, ....ahahaha....
Eric, tell me, did Einstein or Kruscal say why "4" should have (semi)
special significance?...

Reprieve: Eric, even if you would not have made (hopefully) the typo
(*) instead of (^) then what is the big deal of taking any number (x) and
power it by any fraction (1/n) and then rise that result to the same power
of n, which makes you end up with (x)^1 = the initial number x....?
ahahaha.. AHAHA... Why are you making such a big deal out this?
Eric, now feel free... ahahahaha.... to continue your "teachings", tell every
body else that they are wrong and stupid and YOU'll make the score
board look like this:

|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|--------- EVERYBODY n : GISSE 0 ---------------|
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

.... and soon you'll be like your other idol, that uncle Al, whom you so
profusely and profoundly admire... and you too, like him will drown
and disappear in your own "River of s**t".... ahahahaha.....

Now, Eric leave your affiliation with Geriatric Physics and its
senile disciples behind yourself and march on .....
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/28705df8db1c540a
Don't waste what's between your ears on things that were in
vogue a century ago.... Listen to your idol Albert's admonition
when he said in the 1920s that
== "you shouldn't search at the same, now well lit places,
where he had been working".

Listen to the man where he, Einstein, said in 1954 to Besso:

== "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based
== on the field concept, i. e., on continuous structures. In that
== case nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation
== theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics." -- A.E.

Do as the man says, Eric... "Anything less is cowardice"....
You said that. You know it. Do it, Eric.
hanson
Back to top
hanson
science forum Guru


Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 793

PostPosted: Sun Jan 22, 2006 7:45 pm    Post subject: Re: Anti-relativist Alliance Reply with quote

<surrealistic-dream@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1137850139.483447.124450@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Quote:
Traveler wrote:
On 15 Jan 2006 00:46:51 -0800, "Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote:
No wonder you are unable to learn relativity, you can't even read your
source material, hanson!
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg18825282.800.html
"Einstein proved Newton wrong and has yet to be proved wrong himself."

[hanson]

Here is were Gisse got fanatic in his belief of Geriatric Physics because
he, Gisse, didn't want the up-shot of the above url to be known, because
it concludes that the conservative Royal Society dumped Einstein and
preferred Newton 4:1 ... ahahaha... it must have hurt Eric's feelings...
but it seems that Eric since then may have seen the dawn's first light when
he posted: "I would really rather see something take relativity's place" &
"Some of this stuff is just hard to make sense of sometimes" -- Gisse.
Eric appears to evolve.... and he appears to recognize Geriatric Physics
for what it really is ... ahahahaha...
Quote:

[Louis]
Hey, Gisse. Did you know that Sir Karl Popper (of falsifiability fame)
called spacetime "Einstein's block universe in which nothing ever
happens"? That's right. If you believe in spacetime, you also believe
that there is no change or motion in the universe.

[Surre]
To talk about believing in spacetime is as absurd as to talk about
believing in the tooth fair or leprechauns! To talk about the real
existence of spacetime is to go outside of physics and to go into
metaphysics.
[1] You are confusing the 3d universe that changes in time with the 4d
models of events, which, even if known (by God, I guess), does not.
There is no spacetime model of the universe from its birth to death, so
that ends that. Even Popper knew that! Apparently, your 'friend' Popper
was making a little exaggerated and technically incorrect inside joke
to Einstein, and that's all! No significance at all in physics!

Spacetime is ONLY a mathematical model invented to aid people in
visualizing physical events and the relationships that the laws of
physics claim to exist between them. The rest is pure fantasy existing
in your kaleidoscopic fantasy excursion in red-herring land.

Spacetime is used to represent both real and hypothetical situations.
By removing the geometrical spacetime model from relativity, relativity
goes on, but without a very useful aid to visualization. Because humans
are good at visualizations they like to invent geometries as aids to
their work.

Spacetime is as useful a visualization tool to the physicist as the
flowchart is to the computer scientist. But it makes no more sense to
talk about spacetime being "real" as it does to talk about flowcharts
being "real."

All geometry is the result of human invention. No geometry actually
exists. People need to distinguish between the thing and its many
possible discursive theoretical representations.

[hanson]

..... ahahaha... but your accusation [1] is not as convincing as is Louis'
and Popper's, especially since, in essence, you say the same thing
that Louis complains about, but you using different wording. All that
Louis, in principle, is advocating and pushing for is the need for a better
model of nature because the current one(s) have been beaten to death
without revealing any new basic knowledge, but have deteriorated into
pharisaic discussiona about which advocate/believer/fan/disciple is
"right or wrong"... ahahaha... (secret chief reference:..... s.p.relativity)

Can't you see that Louis is right, that you are right and even me, well,
because that's what I say too using still different words... ahahahaha...
So, bottom line is that even Einstein urged pushing on with modeling
as early as ~1920, when his star was meteorically raising, saying:
== "you shouldn't search at the same, now well lit places,
where he had been working".

and he repeated the same encouragement close to the end of his
life in a letter to Besso in 1954, wherein he, Einstein, said :

== "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based
== on the field concept, i. e., on continuous structures. In that
== case nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation
== theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics." -- A.E.

Other luminaries have joined Einstein's notion since then. People like
== Nobel laureate David Gross, who said in 2005 at the prestigious Solvay
Conference: "We are in a period of utter confusion", summing up the
current state on the quantum structure of space and time theories.
== Professor Carver A. Mead of Caltech, expressed his sentiments
with "It is my firm belief that the last seven decades of the twentieth
century will be characterized in history as the dark ages of physics."
....and in some minds the problem is even more wide spread:
== "In the future, Humanity will see in our Epoch an Era of superstition ,
essentially associated with the names of Marx, Freud and Einstein!
F.A Hayek, Nobel Price for Economy.
------
ahahaha... ahahahanson
Back to top
Traveler
science forum Guru


Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 782

PostPosted: Sun Jan 22, 2006 4:00 pm    Post subject: Re: Anti-relativist Alliance Reply with quote

On 21 Jan 2006 05:28:59 -0800, surrealistic-dream@hotmail.com wrote:

Quote:
All geometry is the result of human invention. No geometry actually
exists. People need to distinguish between the thing and its many
possible discursive theoretical representations.

ahahaha... You're preaching to the choir. The fact remains that, for
close to a century, relativists have claimed that geometry is the
mechanism of gravity. Some relativists are now claiming that they
never said that spacetime was a physical entity but this crap is in
countless books and textbooks on GR. No need to deny it. Even at this
late date in the con game, we find con artists like Brian Greene
(superstring crackpot extraordinaire) still claiming that matter
affects spacetime and that spacetime, in turn, affects matter in such
a way as to cause gravity. ahahaha... It would be funny if it weren't
so fucking pathetic.

Physics is so much phucking phun. ahahaha...

Louis Savain

Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
Back to top
glbrad01
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Posts: 105

PostPosted: Sun Jan 22, 2006 1:53 pm    Post subject: Re: Anti-relativist Alliance Reply with quote

Henri Wilson wrote:

(snip)

Quote:
Not so Ghost. It's quite simple and specific.
Light move initially at c wrt its source.

I have added the condition that its speed may vary slightly over vast
distances
of space.

(snip)

Light doesn't deal in space, whether vast or not. It deals in time
differences and differentials, including "vast" differences and/or
differentials in time. It doesn't know "space" from Adam, so to speak. It is
front loaded only (a one-dimensional two-dimensionality, meaning it is
single-sided-only). Try seeing its information, thus it, from any rear or
side angles whatsoever. There are no such things. There is no such thing.
This has no meaning regarding time but it most certainly does have vitally
important meaning regarding space. Light is solely a time traveler even in
space. It is in no way a space traveler. It has no rear angles whatsoever.
It has no side angles whatsoever. It has no spatial geometry, as such,
whatsoever. Indeed it can have no sense of space. It is a naked singularity
orientated to time...and timing...alone, even in space.

Space neutral, it can be used as an implacably [hard] gauge. It couldn't
be so used if it were integrally involved with -- woven into -- space in any
way. There would either be no light at all, period, or there would be
uniformly far, far too much light at every possible point of space, if it
had anything whatsoever to do with any integration whatsoever into or with
space (as such). Since there is no such connection, there is no such problem
("It doesn't know 'space' from Adam," so to speak again).

It might be called "space-time" but that was a very bad, so bad it reaches
the proportions of being purely evil, selection of terms for description for
it. "Distance-time" (light pico-second, light millisecond, light second,
light year, and so on) alone should have been the term for it. Light,
regarding its velocity constant of "c," "invariably" tells us that it is not
time, never time, that is elastic but space alone that is, and that can be
made, elastic (relatively speaking, that is). You can break time up
(therefore light) like shattering a hard diamond into so many asymmetrical
diamond shards (all of them still diamonds; all of them still diamond), but
you can't stretch it, expand it or contract it, or turn it inside out, like
a rubber sheet balloon as you can with space (therefore gravity). Time
(therefore light) possesses such an inherent, adherent, thing as absolute
zero point. Space (therefore gravity) possesses no such inherent, adherent,
thing as absolute zero point what or howsoever. Therefore the one is by far
the hardest, most [inflexible] of all things while the other is by far the
softest, most [flexible] of all things.

GLB
Back to top
glbrad01
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Posts: 105

PostPosted: Sun Jan 22, 2006 11:32 am    Post subject: Re: Anti-relativist Alliance Reply with quote

Henri Wilson wrote:

Quote:
That convincingly shows that light speeds up as it falls, like anything
else.

"c" is inherently a velocity neutral velocity: A speed neutral speed. You
just can't picture such a neutral existing. That's all there is to it.

GLB
Back to top
The Ghost In The Machine1
science forum Guru


Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 1551

PostPosted: Sun Jan 22, 2006 1:00 am    Post subject: Re: Anti-relativist Alliance Reply with quote

In sci.physics.relativity, HW@..(Henri Wilson)
<HW@>
wrote
on Sat, 21 Jan 2006 23:44:53 GMT
<qgh5t1tg56hpvnbfsgre9u3a3jt9ud8tpl@4ax.com>:
Quote:
On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 06:00:13 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:

In sci.physics.relativity, HW@..(Henri Wilson)
HW@
wrote


What experiments have shown the BaTh to be wrong?

No experiments have ever shown the BaTh to be wrong. Of
course, it's far from clear what BaTh is anyway; it's
so nebulous it's very difficult to shoot at.

Not so Ghost. It's quite simple and specific.
Light move initially at c wrt its source.

It also moves at c wrt its receiver, according to SR.
GR states the same thing though there are some minor
anomalies with respect to measurement, mostly because
of the variability of the ticks between source and
destination. (The anomalies are at most on the order of
10^-15 or so, if my computations are correct.)

Quote:

I have added the condition that its speed may vary
slightly over vast distances of space.

(This in contrast to such efforts as Newtonian Ballistic Theory,
or nBaT, which is easily falsified by Sagnac and Pound-Rebka,
or even classical rigid luminiferous aether theory, which is
falsified by MMX.)

What are you talking about Ghost.
Pound -Rebka PROVES the BaTh correct.

It proves nothing of the sort. At best, it is
consistent with BaTh. I'm not even sure about
that; Newtonian BaT theory is easily shown to
require (1 + 2gh/c^2), but GR asserts (1 + gh/c^2).

Quote:

If you do the fairly simple sums you will find it
gives exactly the observed bueshift.

Already done. What is the observed blueshift?

Quote:

I have now provided several reasons why Sagnac
DOES NOT refute the BaTh.

Sagnac is another matter entirely. Absolute time
theories (including Newtonian Ballistic) cannot explain
it at all. I don't know if BaTh can.

SR doesn't do too badly, though the centripetal force
might throw it for a bit of a loop if one's not careful.

Quote:

What experiments have shown your aether exists?

Please. Kenseto's stuff is not aether. It's the E-matrix.
Or something like that. :-)

Call it what you like....same stuff really...


[.sigsnip]


HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm




--
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
Back to top
Eric Gisse
science forum Guru


Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1999

PostPosted: Sun Jan 22, 2006 12:03 am    Post subject: Re: Anti-relativist Alliance Reply with quote

Henri Wilson wrote:

[snip]

Quote:

What are you talking about Ghost.
Pound -Rebka PROVES the BaTh correct.

Neither emitter nor reciever were moving in Pound-Rebka.

[snip]
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 13 [192 Posts] Goto page:  1, 2, 3, ..., 11, 12, 13 Next
View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Fri Sep 12, 2014 6:52 pm | All times are GMT
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Relativity
Jump to:  

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
No new posts By request "Anti-gravity" Sue... Relativity 0 Fri Jun 30, 2006 5:49 pm
No new posts Anti-relativists in an IOP article - recognise names Phineas T Puddleduck Relativity 11 Thu Jun 29, 2006 10:34 pm
No new posts TURMEL: Saba defends Dempsey's anti-bank class action fraud John Turmel Engineering 1 Thu Jun 08, 2006 12:45 am
No new posts TURMEL: Dempsey's anti-bank class action is a fraud John Turmel Engineering 1 Sun Jun 04, 2006 11:50 am
No new posts Making anti-static carpet spray? mc Chem 24 Sun May 28, 2006 11:59 pm

Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
Other DeniX Solutions sites: Electronics forum |  Medicine forum |  Unix/Linux blog |  Unix/Linux documentation |  Unix/Linux forums  |  send newsletters
 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.5420s ][ Queries: 16 (0.4846s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]